there are two request
for a ancient greek wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_...
and for a latin wikinews:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Latina
both are ancient languages, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS. then they don't meet the policy, both.
The first one was proposed in 26 august, and the second since 07 june (04 months!!!).
GerardM, intermediately closed the greek request, but allow to remain the latin one.
or both must reject or continue
what are you problem? What are the interests?, why do not apply with equality the rules?
STOP!!! APPLY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
STOP!!! HYPOCRISY!!!
Cml.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com wrote:
there are two request
for a ancient greek wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_...
and for a latin wikinews:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Latina
both are ancient languages, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS. then they don't meet the policy, both.
The first one was proposed in 26 august, and the second since 07 june (04 months!!!).
GerardM, intermediately closed the greek request, but allow to remain the latin one.
or both must reject or continue
what are you problem? What are the interests?, why do not apply with equality the rules?
STOP!!! APPLY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
STOP!!! HYPOCRISY!!!
Cml.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And please stop typing in caps.
Please relax, and stop accusing people. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with creating a Latin Wikinews, since we already have an active Latin Wikipedia.
-Dan
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.comwrote:
there are two request
for a ancient greek wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_...
and for a latin wikinews:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Latina
both are ancient languages, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS. then they don't meet the policy, both.
The first one was proposed in 26 august, and the second since 07 june (04 months!!!).
GerardM, intermediately closed the greek request, but allow to remain the latin one.
or both must reject or continue
what are you problem? What are the interests?, why do not apply with equality the rules?
STOP!!! APPLY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
STOP!!! HYPOCRISY!!!
Cml.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan Rosenthal hett schreven:
Please relax, and stop accusing people. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with creating a Latin Wikinews, since we already have an active Latin Wikipedia.
-Dan
There's nothing wrong with it except that it does not meet the requirements of the language proposal policy for new projects (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy). That policy asks for native speakers. That is nonsense, imho, but that's the text of the policy.
Slomox Marcus Buck
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.comwrote:
there are two request
for a ancient greek wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_...
and for a latin wikinews:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Latina
both are ancient languages, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS. then they don't meet the policy, both.
The first one was proposed in 26 august, and the second since 07 june (04 months!!!).
GerardM, intermediately closed the greek request, but allow to remain the latin one.
or both must reject or continue
what are you problem? What are the interests?, why do not apply with equality the rules?
STOP!!! APPLY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
STOP!!! HYPOCRISY!!!
Cml.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's different.
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
"De facto" (ops... latin) this is not the "classic" latin language but it's a modified language ("ecclesiatic" latin) which can be considered like an artificial language.
For this reason it can be compared with the Esperanto and the wikinews can be accepted because:
"/If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion".
/In any case a community can be present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Modern_use_of_Latin).
Ilario
Marcus Buck wrote:
There's nothing wrong with it except that it does not meet the requirements of the language proposal policy for new projects (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy). That policy asks for native speakers. That is nonsense, imho, but that's the text of the policy.
Slomox Marcus Buck
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
2008/9/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
There are people all over the world than *can* speak Old Greek, but does anyone actually do so routinely? As far as I know, people speak it in order to learn it so they might read historical things written in it. Latin is used by the Vatican as an official language on a regular basis. I suppose the key thing is that Latin is still written today, Greek is just read.
you are wrong, old greek is used as official language of the eastern greek ortodoxe church. its greek is the koine dialect with neologism for new things and concepts. c.m.l
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] STOP DOUBLE STANDARD!!! OR HYPOCRESY!!! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8:41 PM
2008/9/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli
valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
There are people all over the world than *can* speak Old Greek, but does anyone actually do so routinely? As far as I know, people speak it in order to learn it so they might read historical things written in it. Latin is used by the Vatican as an official language on a regular basis. I suppose the key thing is that Latin is still written today, Greek is just read.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/9/3 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
you are wrong, old greek is used as official language of the eastern greek ortodoxe church. its greek is the koine dialect with neologism for new things and concepts.
I stand corrected. If it's used in the same way as Ecclesiastical Latin, then we should treat it the same.
It is. This has been hashed and rehashed...
2008/9/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/9/3 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
you are wrong, old greek is used as official language of the eastern greek ortodoxe church. its greek is the koine dialect with neologism for new things and concepts.
I stand corrected. If it's used in the same way as Ecclesiastical Latin, then we should treat it the same.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I repeat.
It's different: Ortodoxe Church can use "old greek", but in this case they use an old language without native speakers, Jewish church uses the Classical Hebrew, but there are no native speakers in Classical Hebrew, Hinduism is still using sanskrit for liturgical purposes, but there are no native speakers in sanskrit.
The Ecclesiastic Latin is not the language used in the Bible or in Ancient Rome (the pronunciation for example is strongly different) but it's a language created when the latin was already substituted by "vulgari eloquentia". It has *never* had a native speaker, never. For this reason it's an artificial language (or better an artificial "version" of latin) and for this reason it can have a translation of modern words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Language_materials).
I cannot think how an "old greek Wikipedia" or a "Classical Hebrew Wikipedia" can translate an article about "spintronics" for example.
The difference between Latin and old languages still used in the churches is that Latin has not lose the richness of linguistic registers because, for example, in the XVII century Galileo has written main scientific articles in latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereus_Nuncius), more similar to ecclesiastic one that to classical one.
Latin is prepared to face different types of topics.
Ilario
Crazy Lover wrote:
you are wrong, old greek is used as official language of the eastern greek ortodoxe church. its greek is the koine dialect with neologism for new things and concepts.
c.m.l
"ecclesiastical gree" a strong different pronunciation that classical greek "it is "polluted" with neologism and a creative use of the "old" languages and latin is not artificial it is a below of a tradition. it is different than esperanto a language created by a individue. and it has been writing articles in "ancient greek" (in greece) about modern mathematical and physics topics. it can find in greece public library.
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] STOP DOUBLE STANDARD!!! OR HYPOCRESY!!! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:37 PM
I repeat.
It's different: Ortodoxe Church can use "old greek", but in this case they use an old language without native speakers, Jewish church uses the Classical Hebrew, but there are no native speakers in Classical Hebrew, Hinduism is still using sanskrit for liturgical purposes, but there are no native speakers in sanskrit.
The Ecclesiastic Latin is not the language used in the Bible or in Ancient Rome (the pronunciation for example is strongly different) but it's a language created when the latin was already substituted by "vulgari eloquentia". It has *never* had a native speaker, never. For
this reason it's an artificial language (or better an artificial "version" of latin) and for this reason it can have a translation of modern words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Language_materials).
I cannot think how an "old greek Wikipedia" or a "Classical Hebrew Wikipedia" can translate an article about "spintronics" for example.
The difference between Latin and old languages still used in the churches is that Latin has not lose the richness of linguistic registers because, for example, in the XVII century Galileo has written main scientific articles in latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereus_Nuncius), more similar to ecclesiastic one that to classical one.
Latin is prepared to face different types of topics.
Ilario
Crazy Lover wrote:
you are wrong, old greek is used as official language of the eastern greek
ortodoxe church. its greek is the koine dialect with neologism for new things and concepts.
c.m.l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The Ecclesiastic Latin is not the language used in the Bible or in Ancient Rome (the pronunciation for example is strongly different) but it's a language created when the latin was already substituted by "vulgari eloquentia". It has *never* had a native speaker, never. For this reason it's an artificial language (or better an artificial "version" of latin) and for this reason it can have a translation of modern words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Language_materials).
It might be more accurate to call it an artificial dialect, rather than a different language it its own right. Apart from differences in pronunciation, and the lack of modern vocab in the ancient version, the two are mutually intelligible, right (I don't personally speak either, so I'm not sure)?
Personally I have translated documents of XVI century written in "ecclesiastic latin" guarded in the Archive of Vatican and no dictionary used in my school was helpful to help me to translate at least the 50% of words.
They are intelligible in the main structure, but the trend was to "latinize" popular words instead of to use "classical" ones.
Ilario
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It might be more accurate to call it an artificial dialect, rather than a different language it its own right. Apart from differences in pronunciation, and the lack of modern vocab in the ancient version, the two are mutually intelligible, right (I don't personally speak either, so I'm not sure)?
What I am saying it's different.
If it will use "classical" latin language there is no native speakers and "classical" latin language = old greek language.
If it will use "ecclesiastic" latin language it's an "artificial" language created by church like "lingua franca" to communicate during eight centuries with the same aims of Esperanto. "Ecclesiastic" latin language = Esperanto <> "classical" latin language.
Ilario
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
well, there is "ecclesiastical greek".
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] STOP DOUBLE STANDARD!!! OR HYPOCRESY!!! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8:47 PM
What I am saying it's different.
If it will use "classical" latin language there is no native speakers
and "classical" latin language = old greek language.
If it will use "ecclesiastic" latin language it's an "artificial" language created by church like "lingua franca" to communicate during
eight centuries with the same aims of Esperanto. "Ecclesiastic" latin
language = Esperanto <> "classical" latin language.
Ilario
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli
valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Here any information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin
It's still used in the Vatican.
Ilario
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Illalio, Koine is eccelesiastical language for Orthodox Church, at least in liturgy ... Personally I am equal to found it or not but your argument may do nothing but rage some people.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Here any information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin
It's still used in the Vatican.
Ilario
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Someone needs to tell me WHY we should have a Wikipedia or Wikinews in these kinds of languages.
Has no one heard of duplication of effort? Why put information in languages that are only spoken or read out of curiosity?
I guess my opinion is that it would be an utterly pointless waste of time. No one will go to the Latin Wikipedia. Why would they? They already have a Wikipedia in their native tongue that is much better and much bigger.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Illalio, Koine is eccelesiastical language for Orthodox Church, at least in liturgy ... Personally I am equal to found it or not but your argument may do nothing but rage some people.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Here any information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin
It's still used in the Vatican.
Ilario
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
There are Old Greek speakers all over the world. But, there are no native speakers of both; which is crucial for a new language edition of a Wikimedia project. So, according to that, there will be no Latin Wikinews nor Old Greek Wikipedia. (Or, if something is different, someone from LangCom should say something.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:24 AM, mboverload mboverloadlister@gmail.com wrote:
Someone needs to tell me WHY we should have a Wikipedia or Wikinews in these kinds of languages.
Has no one heard of duplication of effort? Why put information in languages that are only spoken or read out of curiosity?
I guess my opinion is that it would be an utterly pointless waste of time. No one will go to the Latin Wikipedia. Why would they? They already have a Wikipedia in their native tongue that is much better and much bigger.
There is a level of usefulness. All ancient languages which the official status in some religion are known by more people than some languages with small number of speakers. Speaking for the Slavic languages, there are more persons who know Old Church Slavonic than Lower Sorbian (just Belgrade University [without Theological Faculty of Serbian Orthodox Church] produces 100-200 persons per year who are able to read OCS and Lower Sorbian has ~14,000 of speakers). BTW, there is no conlang which has such academic background such OCS, Old Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Old Hebrew and similar languages have.
This puts those languages immediately behind English, other world languages and regional lingua francas (such Swahili is) as a tool for international communication.
And I have one real example for that. Mother of one my friend is from Poland, she was born in late 1930s or so. She moved to Belgrade in, let's say, mid-60s. While she didn't know Serbian well, she communicated with people around her in Polish-Serbian morphology and syntax and Latin lexicon.
So, ancient languages used for liturgical purposes (so, Latin, but not Sumerian) are useful even in everyday communication in some cases. Simply, they have strong academic (because, usually, they represent the earliest form of some group of languages) and religious positions. As such, they are known by many people; usually, all over the world. Maybe LangCom should reconsider their status.
mboverload wrote:
Someone needs to tell me WHY we should have a Wikipedia or Wikinews in these kinds of languages.
There are people who are able to read them, there are people who are willing to write them, and eventually they do include things that other Wikipedias don't.
Folks, I asked you to use another subject without caps, but only a tiny majority got the message.
Thus this thread is now killfiled, sorry... If you need to, use another subject (hint: mike.lifeguard set one up for you...) or find another playground.
It's enough.
Michael
mboverload wrote:
Someone needs to tell me WHY we should have a Wikipedia or Wikinews in these kinds of languages.
This is actually a really good suggestion. It should not be taken as an insult, and it should not be restricted to small or "odd" languages. As now even the closing of Wikiquote was being discussed, we really need to tell each other and the world:
* Why should there be a Wikipedia in French? * Why should there be a Wikisource in English? * Why should there be a Wiktionary in Russian?
We shouldn't take any of these for granted. Tell the world! Why are they needed? Exactly how are they useful? Are they indeed useful, or do we keep all these projects just in case they could become useful? Can you come up with convincing arguments? Who is being helped by these projects?
Such arguments are needed for recruiting more volunteers as well as soliciting donations.
But if we really fail to produce good arguments, perhaps we are just wasting our time and that project should be closed down.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone needs to tell me WHY we should have a Wikipedia or Wikinews in these kinds of languages.
This is actually a really good suggestion. It should not be taken as an insult, and it should not be restricted to small or "odd" languages. As now even the closing of Wikiquote was being discussed, we really need to tell each other and the world:
- Why should there be a Wikipedia in French?
- Why should there be a Wikisource in English?
- Why should there be a Wiktionary in Russian?
We shouldn't take any of these for granted. Tell the world! Why are they needed? Exactly how are they useful? Are they indeed useful, or do we keep all these projects just in case they could become useful? Can you come up with convincing arguments? Who is being helped by these projects?
Such arguments are needed for recruiting more volunteers as well as soliciting donations.
But if we really fail to produce good arguments, perhaps we are just wasting our time and that project should be closed down.
I have a nice quote on that topic
“Everyone loses if one language is lost because then a nation and culture lose their memory, and so does the complex tapestry from which the world is woven and which makes the world an exciting place.”
Vigdis Finnbogadottir UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for Languages
How would we KNOW that our efforts were pleasing to anyone other than ourselves? We have very little information about how valuable our users fee about any of the projects in any language. In the name of some definition of privacy we have created a world where our efforts face virtually no broad reality check.
I suppose we could rely on a marketplace test: Are we succeeding at raising the funds required to keep the operation running and at getting volunteer help to reduce the need for funding?
Presumably the foundations and corporate funders know how to evaluate us, whether it is on some statistical basis, on some good-intentions test, on a feel-good basis, or based on how it contributes to their own objectives.
As to volunteers, who knows what the diversity of motivations is, but we seem to get a fair amount of help, albeit not quite enough disinterested, yet expert help that has the patience to stay with the projects.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
mboverload wrote:
Someone needs to tell me WHY we should have a Wikipedia or Wikinews in these kinds of languages.
This is actually a really good suggestion. It should not be taken as an insult, and it should not be restricted to small or "odd" languages. As now even the closing of Wikiquote was being discussed, we really need to tell each other and the world:
- Why should there be a Wikipedia in French?
- Why should there be a Wikisource in English?
- Why should there be a Wiktionary in Russian?
We shouldn't take any of these for granted. Tell the world! Why are they needed? Exactly how are they useful? Are they indeed useful, or do we keep all these projects just in case they could become useful? Can you come up with convincing arguments? Who is being helped by these projects?
Such arguments are needed for recruiting more volunteers as well as soliciting donations.
But if we really fail to produce good arguments, perhaps we are just wasting our time and that project should be closed down.
I have a nice quote on that topic
"Everyone loses if one language is lost because then a nation and culture lose their memory, and so does the complex tapestry from which the world is woven and which makes the world an exciting place."
Vigdis Finnbogadottir UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador for Languages
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
How would we KNOW that our efforts were pleasing to anyone other than ourselves? We have very little information about how valuable our users fee about any of the projects in any language. In the name of some definition of privacy we have created a world where our efforts face virtually no broad reality check.
If I judge according to your name, you are a native English speaker (sorry if I made a mistake :) ). As someone who is not a native English speaker and as someone who has a fair amount of contacts in non-English world, I may guarantee that not only we have a great support, but we are, actually, a community [and WMF is an organization] with very high reputation (and, not only inside of non-English world). So, according to that, our efforts are valued by others.
I suppose we could rely on a marketplace test: Are we succeeding at raising the funds required to keep the operation running and at getting volunteer help to reduce the need for funding?
Presumably the foundations and corporate funders know how to evaluate us, whether it is on some statistical basis, on some good-intentions test, on a feel-good basis, or based on how it contributes to their own objectives.
AFAIK, donations during the fundraising period at the end of the year are increased from year to year. Actually, I think that last year we've got much more, because the previous one we've got one very big donation doubled by some other donor. (If I don't remember well, someone may correct me.) However, we should watch the fundraising period for this year, too.
2008/9/8 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com:
How would we KNOW that our efforts were pleasing to anyone other than ourselves? We have very little information about how valuable our users fee about any of the projects in any language. In the name of some definition of privacy we have created a world where our efforts face virtually no broad reality check.
wikipedia.org being #8 site on Alexa internationally and top 10 in many individual countries suggests we're doing *something* useful.
Andrew Cates from SOS Children just posted to wikimediauk-l about the success of the 2007 SOS Children Wikipedia Selection for Schools, which they produced for use in their own schools but has been very popular.
The German Wikipedia Lexicon is due out in a week or two, we'll see how that goes!
In terms of people knowing what the Foundation is, what it does, the 750 projects other than en:wp ... at present, I think we're still trying to get across that Wikipedia is run by a charity, not a private company. (Having no ads helps in this regard, I think.)
[Note that I personally think a couple of Google text ads would do wonders for our finances and not hurt the encyclopedia, but I recognise that large chunks of the community would just get up and *leave*, so don't consider it a good idea at this time.]
Presumably the foundations and corporate funders know how to evaluate us, whether it is on some statistical basis, on some good-intentions test, on a feel-good basis, or based on how it contributes to their own objectives.
Wikipedia is popular, useful and people like it lots. It's unreliable but has a lot of good will - when the WikiScanner hit the news, the media and public were outraged at the organisations POV-pushing on Wikipedia, not at us.
As to volunteers, who knows what the diversity of motivations is, but we seem to get a fair amount of help, albeit not quite enough disinterested, yet expert help that has the patience to stay with the projects.
Yeah, we don't have more than anecdotal reports on that. There's a survey in the works to try to get a more solid idea.
- d.
2008/9/9 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/8 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com:
Presumably the foundations and corporate funders know how to evaluate us, whether it is on some statistical basis, on some good-intentions test, on a feel-good basis, or based on how it contributes to their own objectives.
Wikipedia is popular, useful and people like it lots. It's unreliable but has a lot of good will - when the WikiScanner hit the news, the media and public were outraged at the organisations POV-pushing on Wikipedia, not at us.
To clarify: "You do Wikipedia? Excellent! Are you halfway competent? Excellent! Have some money! My name in the press release? Excellent! Thank you!"
It's a start :-)
- d.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/9 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/8 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com:
Presumably the foundations and corporate funders know how to evaluate us, whether it is on some statistical basis, on some good-intentions test, on a feel-good basis, or based on how it contributes to their own objectives.
Wikipedia is popular, useful and people like it lots. It's unreliable but has a lot of good will - when the WikiScanner hit the news, the media and public were outraged at the organisations POV-pushing on Wikipedia, not at us.
To clarify: "You do Wikipedia? Excellent! Are you halfway competent? Excellent! Have some money! My name in the press release? Excellent! Thank you!"
It's a start :-)
Actually, yes, I forgot [to mention] that we are at the top and that it is hard to be higher :)
First of all: native speakers mean that the language is spoke by babies!!!. no babies speak latin or ancient greek. Artificial or constructed languages are the ones that are invented by someone from scratch. latin will always be considered ancient, even if it is used in modern times, not artificial. cml. --- On Wed, 9/3/08, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] STOP DOUBLE STANDARD!!! OR HYPOCRESY!!! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 8:26 PM
It's different.
There are latin speakers in the Vatican for example.
"De facto" (ops... latin) this is not the "classic" latin language but it's a modified language ("ecclesiatic" latin) which can be considered like an artificial language.
For this reason it can be compared with the Esperanto and the wikinews can be accepted because:
"/If the proposal is for an artificial language such as Esperanto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto, it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as determined by discussion".
/In any case a community can be present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#Modern_use_of_Latin).
Ilario
Marcus Buck wrote:
There's nothing wrong with it except that it does not meet the requirements of the language proposal policy for new projects (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy). That
policy
asks for native speakers. That is nonsense, imho, but that's the text
of
the policy.
Slomox Marcus Buck
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/9/3 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
there are two request
for a ancient greek wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_...
and for a latin wikinews:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Latina
both are ancient languages, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS. then they don't meet the policy, both.
The first one was proposed in 26 august, and the second since 07 june (04 months!!!).
GerardM, intermediately closed the greek request, but allow to remain the latin one.
or both must reject or continue
what are you problem? What are the interests?, why do not apply with equality the rules?
STOP!!! APPLY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
STOP!!! HYPOCRISY!!!
Cml.
Not double standards because the two are not remotely equivalent.
Ancient greek is a fairly typical dead language. It's understood by academics and a few enthusiasts. The corpus of modern work is extremely limited and the general public has little interaction with it. There is some use by a church but it is only slightly above Coptic in that respect.
Latin is technically dead yes but that is very much a technicality. It's understood by both a wider set of academics and various catholic church officials. The corpus of modern work is rather extensive with both the official Vatican publications and various other groups producing regular material. Then you have to remember that there are the so called silver surfers online. You don't have to go back that far that every British public school boy and a fair chunk of the grammar school pupils would have had a fair coverage of latin. Then of course there is the pre-VC2 latin rite. Every church going catholic prior to the 60s would have had a high level of interaction with latin. Then there are the various Latin inscriptions on older public buildings and the like.
Latin has also done something of a better job of hanging on around the edges. For example in english AD the various legal phrases quotations alea iacta est (and no end of religious stuff Ave maria etc)
ancient greek? aside from modern greek kyrie eleison ΙΧΘΥΣ. Deus ex machina is about it in terms of secular stuff. Even a recent popular film hasn't raised "Molōn labe!" to the level of say "Veni, vidi, vici"
In short among the dead languages Latin stands apart and cannot be used to support the case of any other.
you don't understand anything. the nab is the policy. if a language is "dead" (no longer native speakers) don't meet the wikimedia language proposal policy. Applying the rules, any latin projects must be reject. It is not admisible that langcom don't apply with equality the rule. And in other mail i said, Eastern greek ortodoxe church use ancient greek as official language, as language work. cml
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] STOP DOUBLE STANDARD!!! OR HYPOCRESY!!! To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 9:32 PM
2008/9/3 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
there are two request
for a ancient greek wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ancient_...
and for a latin wikinews:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikinews_Latina
both are ancient languages, with NO NATIVE SPEAKERS. then they don't
meet the policy, both.
The first one was proposed in 26 august, and the second since 07 june (04
months!!!).
GerardM, intermediately closed the greek request, but allow to remain the
latin one.
or both must reject or continue
what are you problem? What are the interests?, why do not apply with
equality the rules?
STOP!!! APPLY DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
STOP!!! HYPOCRISY!!!
Cml.
Not double standards because the two are not remotely equivalent.
Ancient greek is a fairly typical dead language. It's understood by academics and a few enthusiasts. The corpus of modern work is extremely limited and the general public has little interaction with it. There is some use by a church but it is only slightly above Coptic in that respect.
Latin is technically dead yes but that is very much a technicality. It's understood by both a wider set of academics and various catholic church officials. The corpus of modern work is rather extensive with both the official Vatican publications and various other groups producing regular material. Then you have to remember that there are the so called silver surfers online. You don't have to go back that far that every British public school boy and a fair chunk of the grammar school pupils would have had a fair coverage of latin. Then of course there is the pre-VC2 latin rite. Every church going catholic prior to the 60s would have had a high level of interaction with latin. Then there are the various Latin inscriptions on older public buildings and the like.
Latin has also done something of a better job of hanging on around the edges. For example in english AD the various legal phrases quotations alea iacta est (and no end of religious stuff Ave maria etc)
ancient greek? aside from modern greek kyrie eleison ΙΧΘΥΣ. Deus ex machina is about it in terms of secular stuff. Even a recent popular film hasn't raised "Molōn labe!" to the level of say "Veni, vidi, vici"
In short among the dead languages Latin stands apart and cannot be used to support the case of any other.
Ok, quick survey!
Is there someone who will participate actively in a "Old Greek Wikipedia"?
Is there someone who doesn't need to have an "Old Greek Wikipedia" like folkloristic project?
Is there someone who can assure a "continuity" of project avoiding it to be close for inactivity?
Is there someone who can translate in old greek language this "popular" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)) without being "original"?
After that a request for an "Old Greek Wikipedia" makes sense.
Ilario
Crazy Lover wrote:
you don't understand anything. the nab is the policy. if a language is "dead" (no longer native speakers) don't meet the wikimedia language proposal policy. Applying the rules, any latin projects must be reject. It is not admisible that langcom don't apply with equality the rule.
And in other mail i said, Eastern greek ortodoxe church use ancient greek as official language, as language work.
cml
2008/9/3 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
you don't understand anything. the nab is the policy. if a language is "dead" (no longer >native speakers) don't meet the wikimedia language proposal policy. Applying the rules, any >latin projects must be reject. It is not admisible that langcom don't apply with equality the >rule.
Like all rules it breaks down under extreme conditions. Latin is a very extreme case. Trying to compare ancient greek to it is insulting to the intelligence of this mailing list.
Latin being dead is really only a technicality. It has a lot more activity than many live languages. Ancient greek however is a fairly standard dead language similar to say Coptic.
And in other mail i said, Eastern greek ortodoxe church use ancient greek as official >language, as language work.
Greece has a population of a bit over 11 million. There are over 900 million catholics around. The two are not comparable. The Holy See has direct control over a sovereign state. Greek Orthodox not so much.
Realistically you are suggesting we treat a Ring-tailed Lemur in the same manner as a 900 pound gorilla.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Latin being dead is really only a technicality.
How so? Are there Latin words for new concepts? Is there a Latin word for "internet", and "cell phone", and "microwave"? If so, it's not dead. If not, how can you write an encyclopedia in it?
Seriously folks. Do we need to discuss this (someone said it had been flogged abundantly already?)
And if we do, can we please stop with the caps lock?
Mike
Seriously folks. Do we need to discuss this (someone said it had been flogged abundantly already?)
No, we don't. It seems to be the topic of the year both here and on meta discussions.
Cheers Yaroslav
2008/9/3 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Latin being dead is really only a technicality.
How so?
Because the term "zombie language" is unlikely to catch on any time soon.
Are there Latin words for new concepts?
Yes. There are news broadcasts in latin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6079852.stm
Is there a Latin word for "internet", and "cell phone", and "microwave"?
"Interrete", err la.wikipedia goes for "Telephonum gestabile" which looks horrific not sure about microwave.
If so, it's not dead.
It's not a living language in anything approaching the conventional sense.
If not, how can you write an encyclopedia in it?
We have a wikipedia in Cornish. Generally you solve the problem either by using constructs or loanwords from the dominant local language sometimes localising them on the way.
For example our cornish wikipedia contains the word "mappa" which is pretty clearly modified from the English while it takes "planet" directly.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:07 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a living language in anything approaching the conventional sense.
I always thought "dead language" meant the language was no longer changing. Apparently Wikipedia defines it as a language with no native speakers. Checking a few other sources, Wikipedia's definition seems to be the generally accepted one. So...OK...Nevermind...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:07 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a living language in anything approaching the conventional sense.
I always thought "dead language" meant the language was no longer changing. Apparently Wikipedia defines it as a language with no native speakers. Checking a few other sources, Wikipedia's definition seems to be the generally accepted one. So...OK...Nevermind...
I believe someone asked the thread to get rid of the CAPS subject recently. I'd like to suggest that people endeavor to do that.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
geni wrote:
2008/9/3 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com:
you don't understand anything. the nab is the policy. if a language is "dead" (no longer >native speakers) don't meet the wikimedia language proposal policy. Applying the rules, any >latin projects must be reject. It is not admisible that langcom don't apply with equality the >rule.
Like all rules it breaks down under extreme conditions. Latin is a very extreme case. Trying to compare ancient greek to it is insulting to the intelligence of this mailing list.
And trying to say that they are uncomparable is insulting to my intelligence at least.
Latin and Ancient Greek are, you admit, used in the same way, and the only difference is the number of speakers. The number of speakers isn't relevant for live languages, so why would it be relevant for dead ones?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org